don't forget the other anti-conspiracy, anti-truth, anti-RonPaul, anti-freedom trolls: herkimer, nonolibertarians, facehammer, NotCOINTELPROAgent, backpackwayne, Fountainhead, etc. They may not be as stalkerish as jcm, but they still work hard to spread propaganda and attack anybody who disagrees with them.
They all work together in the Digg/Reddit bury brigade pretending to by normal users, while having 100's of accounts each trying to stem the wave of indignation against the government through social media.
Why can't Moskowitz defend himself? No, he has to send out his butt buddies every time he gets called out.
EDIT: Look on the links section on the right hand-side. It links directly to his Reddit troll account. Also look at his friends lists, these guys are long-time Digg trolls, part of an infamous group called "The Bury Brigade." There's been countless posts on this.
What really amazes me and I still haven't figured out is why they use the same names. It doesn't make any sense. Why use the "son" thing, and why be so obvious?
Look at your own screenshot, dummy. It does NOT link to my account, it links to HIS. Are you retarded or are you playing some kind of silly troll game?
Good, my peers will be all the people you accused me of being.
Your copypasta just proves that lots of people hate Ron Paul and his bigoted supporters. But looking through his history COINTELPROAgent seems like kind of a dick, and mean. I'm a nice guy and a people-person.
Ok you win, I admit everything. I'm this COINTELPROAgent guy, his friend NoLiberties, and dozens of others. I'm sitting in a room full of computers right now controlling dozens of accounts, all meant to fool everyone. I'm Mumberthrax, too. Had you fooled!
Well let's see, with goofs in your brigade like NoLibraries, NoLibrary, NoLibrarian, NoLibs, NoLibertarians, NoNoLibertarians, am I fucking surprised that you have more than one account?
Let me get this straight: are you accusing me of being all these other phantoms too?
I've never been banned from anything. I never had a Digg and I don't have any need for different accounts here.
Maybe this is answered elsewhere, but what constitutes personal information? If I post a link to a user profile on another website like digg, is that less personal than posting a link to a user profile on myspace or facebook? Or is it similarly disallowed?
What if instead of posting a link, I tell people to look up the person's username on digg or pipl? If I tell them that this user is a known troll or does bad things, and they can see the evidence on the digg site, etc.
At what point is information on the internet personal, and at what point is it public?
What if I send people links or quotes from previous conversations on reddit about a user? Is that personal information? If I post a collection of links to discussions about how user X is a troll or shill or astroturfer or whatever, all hosted on reddit where any user can view them, not published by me, is that posting personal information? Or if I submit a list of suspected sockpuppet accounts for a user?
Because you DO have a troll problem on here, and they make a huge fuss whenever someone tries to expose them or educate others about them. I just want to know the limits of what I can do to help educate people about them without getting myself banned. I know you've suggested posting in reportthespammers, but that isn't going to help the people who browse r/conspiracy if they never visit r/reportthespammers.
Lastly, I am curious about whether radioactivemilk was given a warning before he had his account removed. As you can see, I'm a little fuzzy on what constitutes a rule violation, so if I screw something up I don't want to be banned without the chance to remove my offending post or without knowing that my action was a rule violation. I know you didn't ban radioactivemilk from reddit, but somehow I doubt that the admins will listen to me if I try to talk to them. So anything you know about this stuff, I'd appreciate hearing it.
My rule of thumb is this: if they haven't posted the information on reddit, it's personal info. Links to someone's livejournal or whatever with the exact same username as their reddit username is a gray area -- while not really the source of any new information, it is often just an invite to go harass that person. The only exception I would make there is if someone was like "holy shit check out this redditor's really cool deviant art, I love it!" and even then, it's polite to ask permission first.
If there is a troll problem, tell admins about it. Trying to whip up a vigilante mob by trying to "expose" what they do outside of reddit is absolutely not acceptable. And I hate to say this, but /r/conspiracy tends to be filled with people that...well, see conspiracy in everything. People tend to make a bigger deal out of nothing.
And the other thing is there's a difference between being a disagreeable jerk and harassing other users. If I go into every Israel/Palestine thread and ardently argue for one side for whatever reason, I am not of the opinion that we should be banning users for that. If people start harassing users while doing so, then we have a problem.
You can see how this very thread was pretty clearly harassment of another user. Doesn't matter what the justification is.
Yes, radioactivemilk was given a kind of warning: the rules of reddit are made explicit in the links at the bottom and the admins have made this policy clear several times over in various blog posts. Check it out, yo.
Furthermore, this is not something I did. Only admins can do this kind of thing, and they kind of run the site. So it's the people that run reddit who are doing this, not some regular old mod user.
Links to someone's livejournal or whatever with the exact same username as their reddit username is a gray area -- while not really the source of any new information, it is often just an invite to go harass that person
Did you get the feeling that radioactivemilk was trying to invite people to harass NotCOINTELPROAgent by posting his almost identical digg username+link? Or by posting the link to the youtube page for hortnon who is a member of their troll club? Because I didn't, but I could be looking at it from too narrow of a perspective. I inferred that he was trying to show that they have an extensive history of trolling and spreading propaganda, and are infamous on other sites on the internet, as sort of mini-celebrities.
If there is a troll problem, tell admins about it.
"If"? ...Okay. So what do I do when they don't respond?
Trying to whip up a vigilante mob by trying to "expose" what they do outside of reddit is absolutely not acceptable.
Education and exposition is not calling for vigilantism. It's disingenuous to imply that it is. Would you argue that the post which is on the front page at this very moment which lists ostensible spammers' usernames is an attempt to whip up vigilantism? The admins surely have seen it, and have not removed it. I would say that this is a double standard. http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/imeug/large_multinational_indian_based_it_support/
The intent is not to whip up vigilantism. The intent is to educate.
People [on r/conspiracy] tend to make a bigger deal out of nothing.
Yes of course a good portion of the people who regular r/conspiracy are going to be more prone to paranoia and sensationalism. Are we going to be nannies to them? Keep them from seeing things which don't necessarily break the rules but which they might react irrationally toward?
Anyway, like I said, i didn't infer a call to vigilantism. If you could point out the section of radioactivemilk's comments which did, then I would appreciate it. This is how I learn.
this very thread was pretty clearly harassment of another user
I'm not sure about this. What differentiates it from a thread about a dislikable public figure on another website, or a major troll like on r/worstof or r/reportthetrolls? Is it only different or special because the person himself arrived and left comments about the facebook page (which I agree WAS inappropriate - but that was nononoluciferians, not radioactivemilk's doing)
radioactivemilk was given a kind of warning: the rules of reddit are made explicit in the links at the bottom and the admins have made this policy clear several times over in various blog posts.
I took a look at the link you posted about personal information. Here is the text:
Is posting personal information ok?
NO. Reddit is a pretty open and free speech place, but it is not ok to post someone's personal information, or post links to personal information. This includes links to public Facebook pages and screenshots of facebook pages with the names still legible. We all get outraged by the ignorant things people say and do online, but witch hunts and vigilantism hurt innocent people and certain individual information, including personal info found online is often false. Such posts or comments may be removed by moderators or admins. Repeated offenders may be banned. Posting professional links to contact a congressman or the CEO of some company is probably fine, but don't post anything inviting harassment, don't harass, and don't cheer on or vote up obvious vigilantism.
Radioactivemilk did not post a link to anybody's facebook page. He posted:
publicly visible comments on reddit from jcm267
link to a digg page with an almost identical username as NotCOINTELPROAgent
a link to a youtube page with an almost identical username as NotCOINTELPROAgent
a link to a youtube page which uses the exact same name as jcm267 uses on reddit
a link to their troll reddit where they upvote each other to counter the downvotes their trolling other reddits gets them
a link to another youtube page listed as jcm267's friend on youtube (who shares the same name as a regular user of their troll subreddit)
a link to a google search for the three names which showed clearly their infamous status as internet trolls and propagandist mini-celebrities.
a link to pipl.com when asked how the facebook identity was verified.
So, which of these is personal information? None of them are facebook. None of them are mailing addresses, phone numbers, email, or anything that does not share publicly available usernames (or very slight variants) that they regularly use on reddit.
So if these are personal information, then I hope that radioactivemilk was given a more explicit warning than the link you provided me which I quoted.
Furthermore, this is not something I did.
Did you remove his posts, or did the admins? I know you could not have shadowbanned him or edited his post. But you could have removed his comments. I'm not holding you accountable for admin actions, but I do want to know the extent of your involvement.
edit: oh haha, I'm silly. He posted a real name. Alright, I can see that. But why remove his comments?
Did you get the feeling that radioactivemilk was trying to invite people to harass NotCOINTELPROAgent
He is accusing him of being part of a conspiracy and then linking people to his personal stuff. Of course he is. Even if that isn't his intention, it is the ultimate effect -- you can't just post personal stuff, accuse people of something bad, and then say "well I didn't MEAN for people to bug him!" That's irresponsible.
"If"? ...Okay. So what do I do when they don't respond?
Quit reddit. They run the site, man, if you have a problem and they don't respond to you, it's not up to you to call in vigilante action.
Would you argue that the post which is on the front page at this very moment which lists ostensible spammers' usernames is an attempt to whip up vigilantism?
Those are reports of someone's comments on reddit. If someone is harassing you on reddit, you are free to do the same kind of thing to get them to stop doing so. This goes outside of reddit. "Outside" being the key distinction.
The intent is not to whip up vigilantism. The intent is to educate.
Educate for the purpose of vigilantism. What is then done with this new knowledge? Of course the idea is to then downvote the target en masse, or possibly harass them, on reddit or off, whether they are actually guilty or not. That's a vigilante.
Anyway, like I said, i didn't infer a call to vigilantism. If you could point out the section of radioactivemilk's comments which did, then I would appreciate it. This is how I learn.
Are you fucking blind?
radioactivemilk wrote:
"That's just a sampling from the first page. As you can see, this troll is relentless and deserves to be placed in prison, where he belongs. Death to the 9/11 Traitors, may they get the public trial and execution they deserve!"
Yeah, I think "death to the 9/11 traitors" counts as harassment.
I'm not sure about this. What differentiates it from a thread about a dislikable public figure on another website, or a major troll like on r/worstof or r/reportthetrolls? Is it only different or special because the person himself arrived and left comments about the facebook page (which I agree WAS inappropriate - but that was nononoluciferians, not radioactivemilk's doing)
A public figure from another site is not a redditor. We're concerned with harassment of redditors, or with private information of that public figure being posted on reddit. You can talk about the public figure's public actions, but you can't talk about private information you've discovered.
/r/worstof is concerned with reddit actions only. Again, the "outside" distinction.
Radioactivemilk did not post a link to anybody's facebook page
Read the rule again:
but it is not ok to post someone's personal information, or post links to personal information. This includes links to public Facebook pages
Facebook pages were an example. That is not an exhaustive list of things you cannot post. That was a shit load of personal pages you posted, and I think you should look at that list again and realize that list is an incrimination, not a defense. Guess what? Facebook pages are often publicly available when people use their reddit username as their Facebook URL. Just because you can guess someone's account name on another side doesn't mean it's not personal information. If my username was my full name, you're not allowed to post my phone number and claim "IT WAS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE."
It all comes down to this:
but don't post anything inviting harassment, don't harass, and don't cheer on or vote up obvious vigilantism.
Those links were obviously intended to invite harassment.
Oh and did you miss the part where radioactivemilk thanked someone for posting his Facebook? His intention was clearly to post as much information as he could about this person.
Did you remove his posts, or did the admins? I know you could not have shadowbanned him or edited his post. But you could have removed his comments. I'm not holding you accountable for admin actions, but I do want to know the extent of your involvement.
I removed his comments because that is my job. I alerted the admins as to the situation, and judging by their action, I am confident I made the correct decision.
What is then done with this new knowledge? Of course the idea is to then downvote the target en masse, or possibly harass them, on reddit or off, whether they are actually guilty or not.
That was not the intent I inferred at all. It seems like you are assuming a bit much. Why would calling attention to trolls or propagandists be only for downvote brigades? Do you not value education so that people can learn what a troll or propagandist does so their actions can be countered in an intelligent and polite manner?
I don't know. I can understand where you are coming from. I wish that you weren't such a dick about trying to express it. I just think that you're ignoring the problem by focusing on a technicality. It's apparent to me that these guys are a problem. I wish that you would do something to help us to sort it out in a constructive manner and not just censor and ridicule the people who subscribe to r/conspiracy. It's a little disheartening. I can understand though if you moderate a lot of reddits and don't have time to invest in helping us figure out what to do about them and these call-out submissions that pop up.
I don't think your name-phone#/username-facebook analogy is quite applicable here. Digg and youtube are not facebook. I understood that facebook was just one example. Digg and youtube are different kind of websites, similar to reddit. I guess it's clear now that removing those links were your actions, not the admins. That's comforting to a certain extent.
Those links were obviously intended to invite harassment.
It may be obvious to you, it just doesn't follow for me. I could see if he said "go downvote these guys because they don't deserve to be blah blah blah". and the bit about the traitors being killed was kind of extreme. I'm kind of glad that part was removed. I just don't get how the other comments were bad. Anyway, sorry for being so dense and bothering you. Thanks for sharing what you did.
"That's just a sampling from the first page. As you can see, this troll is relentless and deserves to be placed in prison, where he belongs. Death to the 9/11 Traitors, may they get the public trial and execution they deserve!"
This is all I need to post, honestly.
Listen, I've been at the heart of a million stupid /r/conspiracy and /r/worldnews shit fights. It's all the same, it's never just about being harassed, it's about proving someone is something outside of reddit, and not only that, but from some kind of group that needs to be stopped somehow. It's a witch hunt, pure and simple.
What was radioactivemilk's ultimate goal? If it was to get him kicked off for being a "troll", there's no point: we aren't going to do anything unless there is harassment, and in that case, a link to the reddit posts is all you need to post.
Yeah, seriously. JCM267's real name is Sean Paul Lockhart, but he is better known as Brent Corrigan, winner of back-to-back GayVN "Best Bottom" awards. Show some respect, people.
Thanks for calling my attention to that, son. I didn't know that Nolubrication was part of the operation. Man, this compartmentalization thing is really effective. I wonder how fuckingkillme11441 (aka ghibmmm) ever managed to figure this out.
I, as a full fledged member of your cult, demand that I be reinstated with full posting and commenting privileges at ALL of your herp derp factories subreddits. Furthermore, having been recognized by reddit for my contribution, I feel that a moderator role would be appropriate.
If an illiterate simpleton like NoNoLibertarians, or a raging fuck-stick like JCM267 can moderate a vortex of assholedom prestigious subreddit such as r/conspiratard, certainly I should be afforded the same honor.
Oh, that's too funny. Now that I've been bonafide, are you going to un-ban me from r/conspiratard? I'm one of the "good guys" now, right? Won't you let me join in your mental masturbation, reindeer games?
I tend to agree with you in this situation. I find it really funny though that you so valiantly support the rules when it comes to something that could potentially harm your downvote brigade buddy, and yet the rest of you freely violate the no personal attacks and no abusive behavior rules all the time.
No..., it's the posting of personal information that I am pointing out here. That is not allowed in any way or form. I love a good fight and you are welcome to call me any name in the book. But after the conversation is over you need to let it go. Not go out and make more posts to declare what an asshole this person is. I have never done that and I never will. That's just childish. And posting personal information is being vindictive and is one of the prime directive no-nos on this site. I have never done that to anyone.
If so that should be removed too. One does not excuse the other. Stop being such dicks and knock this shit off. You can argue your points with out such being vindictive fanatics.
In one instance that I saw, it was reported and removed. Other instances have gone unaddressed. No one is making excuses, but if you have a problem with people getting their personal info posted because of petty online political bickering, then you have a problem with jcm267.
Stop being dicks and knock this shit off. You can argue your points without being vindictive fanatics.
agreed 100%. Maybe you can convince jcm267 and his buddies of this point. If not, you need to take a closer look at who you are in bed with here, because they may not be playing by the same rules as you.
You know I bet you'd get along just well with the nutcases I have been dealing with over the past few days. You know according to one of the idiots you quoted I'm working for CENTCOM, according to the other idiot I'm a member of the Rothschild family. Now, radioactivemilk, according to you I'm some guy named Josh C Moskowitz and I deserve the death penalty for my crimes. The crimes you allege me to do are the same "crimes" that you are committing in the very post you are calling for me to be executed.
You're a paranoid jackass and a hypocrite, radioactivemilk! Go fuck yourself!
Maybe this is answered elsewhere, but what constitutes personal information? If I post a link to a user profile on another website like digg, is that less personal than posting a link to a user profile on myspace or facebook? Or is it similarly disallowed?
What if instead of posting a link, I tell people to look up the person's username on digg or pipl? If I tell them that this user is a known troll or does bad things, and they can see the evidence on the digg site, etc.
At what point is information on the internet personal, and at what point is it public?
What if I send people links or quotes from previous conversations on reddit about a user? Is that personal information? If I post a collection of links to discussions about how user X is a troll or shill or astroturfer or whatever, all hosted on reddit where any user can view them, not published by me, is that posting personal information? Or if I submit a list of suspected sockpuppet accounts for a user?
Because you DO have a troll problem on here, and they make a huge fuss whenever someone tries to expose them or educate others about them. I just want to know the limits of what I can do to help educate people about them without getting myself banned. I know you've suggested posting in reportthespammers, but that isn't going to help the people who browse r/conspiracy if they never visit r/reportthespammers.
Lastly, I am curious about whether radioactivemilk was given a warning before he had his account removed. As you can see, I'm a little fuzzy on what constitutes a rule violation, so if I screw something up I don't want to be banned without the chance to remove my offending post or without knowing that my action was a rule violation. I know you didn't ban radioactivemilk from reddit, but somehow I doubt that the admins will listen to me if I try to talk to them. So anything you know about this stuff, I'd appreciate hearing it.
54 comments
5 Mumberthrax 2011-07-10
don't forget the other anti-conspiracy, anti-truth, anti-RonPaul, anti-freedom trolls: herkimer, nonolibertarians, facehammer, NotCOINTELPROAgent, backpackwayne, Fountainhead, etc. They may not be as stalkerish as jcm, but they still work hard to spread propaganda and attack anybody who disagrees with them.
edit: more about jcm267 by kleinbl00: http://www.reddit.com/comments/ej3g3/on_the_ethics_of_trollkilling/
7 osamabenbernanke 2011-07-10
They all work together in the Digg/Reddit bury brigade pretending to by normal users, while having 100's of accounts each trying to stem the wave of indignation against the government through social media.
0 NoNoLibertarians 2011-07-10
No son, we most certainly don't. Your paranoia is running away with you. This is how we know you guys have a big time cult going here!
-3 NotCOINTELPROAgent 2011-07-10
FOAD. The only stalking here is the post you're commenting on.
9 radioactivemilk 2011-07-10
Oh look, another reddit/digg stalker.
-5 NotCOINTELPROAgent 2011-07-10
I don't have an account on Digg. No idea what you're talking about.
9 radioactivemilk 2011-07-10
You are a fucking liar.
Why can't Moskowitz defend himself? No, he has to send out his butt buddies every time he gets called out.
EDIT: Look on the links section on the right hand-side. It links directly to his Reddit troll account. Also look at his friends lists, these guys are long-time Digg trolls, part of an infamous group called "The Bury Brigade." There's been countless posts on this.
-5 NotCOINTELPROAgent 2011-07-10
Are you dyslexic? NotCOINTELPROAGENT ≠ COINTELPROAgent. I can't do anything if someone links to my reddit account. You're probably COINTELPROAgent.
Apologize for calling me a liar.
5 [deleted] 2011-07-10
[deleted]
5 Mumberthrax 2011-07-10
What really amazes me and I still haven't figured out is why they use the same names. It doesn't make any sense. Why use the "son" thing, and why be so obvious?
-1 NoNoLibertarians 2011-07-10
The "son" thing is to play to your paranoia. We are not the same people son!
6 Nolubrication 2011-07-10
I thought the "son" thing was to let everyone know without a doubt that they were talking to an asshole.
-4 NotCOINTELPROAgent 2011-07-10
Again, I'm not COINTELPROAgent. Unless I'm missing something I don't see any link to my reddit account on your Digg link, nutball.
7 radioactivemilk 2011-07-10
You are not only a liar, but stupid enough to not even remember you put it there, and blind enough not to be able to see it:
http://i.imgur.com/qvbbQ.png
http://digg.com/COINTELPROAgent
Bottom right, numnuts. You'll go down as the dumbest government-paid troll on the Internet.
1 NotCOINTELPROAgent 2011-07-10
Look at your own screenshot, dummy. It does NOT link to my account, it links to HIS. Are you retarded or are you playing some kind of silly troll game?
3 radioactivemilk 2011-07-10
Well let's see, with goofs in your brigade like NoLibraries, NoLibrary, NoLibrarian, NoLibs, NoLibertarians, NoNoLibertarians, am I fucking surprised that you have more than one account?
Half your accounts have been banned. That's why you losers came to Reddit, you couldn't manage your disinformation campaign on Digg.
1 NotCOINTELPROAgent 2011-07-10
Let me get this straight: now you're accusing me of being all these other phantoms too?
I've never been banned from anything. I don't have an account on Digg and I don't have any need for different accounts here.
And "disinformation campaign"? Puh-lease. Is this because I don't like Ron Paul? Is that why you're raging?
4 [deleted] 2011-07-10
[deleted]
0 NotCOINTELPROAgent 2011-07-10
Good, my peers will be all the people you accused me of being.
Your copypasta just proves that lots of people hate Ron Paul and his bigoted supporters. But looking through his history COINTELPROAgent seems like kind of a dick, and mean. I'm a nice guy and a people-person.
4 radioactivemilk 2011-07-10
You're not fooling anyone anymore.
-1 NotCOINTELPROAgent 2011-07-10
Ok you win, I admit everything. I'm this COINTELPROAgent guy, his friend NoLiberties, and dozens of others. I'm sitting in a room full of computers right now controlling dozens of accounts, all meant to fool everyone. I'm Mumberthrax, too. Had you fooled!
3 radioactivemilk 2011-07-10
You said it.
I'm pretty sure Nolibs is a separate basketcase, however. No persona software could fake that extreme level of retardation.
2 Mumberthrax 2011-07-10
The propagandist noticed me. I must be doing something right. :)
-2 NotCOINTELPROAgent 2011-07-10
Yeah, what's that guy's problem anyway?
-4 NoLibraries 2011-07-10
Let me get this straight: are you accusing me of being all these other phantoms too?
I've never been banned from anything. I never had a Digg and I don't have any need for different accounts here.
3 illuminatedwax 2011-07-10
For everyone still reading this thread: DO NOT POST PERSONAL INFORMATION. NO. DON'T DO IT.
2 Mumberthrax 2011-07-10
Maybe this is answered elsewhere, but what constitutes personal information? If I post a link to a user profile on another website like digg, is that less personal than posting a link to a user profile on myspace or facebook? Or is it similarly disallowed?
What if instead of posting a link, I tell people to look up the person's username on digg or pipl? If I tell them that this user is a known troll or does bad things, and they can see the evidence on the digg site, etc.
At what point is information on the internet personal, and at what point is it public?
What if I send people links or quotes from previous conversations on reddit about a user? Is that personal information? If I post a collection of links to discussions about how user X is a troll or shill or astroturfer or whatever, all hosted on reddit where any user can view them, not published by me, is that posting personal information? Or if I submit a list of suspected sockpuppet accounts for a user?
Because you DO have a troll problem on here, and they make a huge fuss whenever someone tries to expose them or educate others about them. I just want to know the limits of what I can do to help educate people about them without getting myself banned. I know you've suggested posting in reportthespammers, but that isn't going to help the people who browse r/conspiracy if they never visit r/reportthespammers.
Lastly, I am curious about whether radioactivemilk was given a warning before he had his account removed. As you can see, I'm a little fuzzy on what constitutes a rule violation, so if I screw something up I don't want to be banned without the chance to remove my offending post or without knowing that my action was a rule violation. I know you didn't ban radioactivemilk from reddit, but somehow I doubt that the admins will listen to me if I try to talk to them. So anything you know about this stuff, I'd appreciate hearing it.
3 illuminatedwax 2011-07-10
My rule of thumb is this: if they haven't posted the information on reddit, it's personal info. Links to someone's livejournal or whatever with the exact same username as their reddit username is a gray area -- while not really the source of any new information, it is often just an invite to go harass that person. The only exception I would make there is if someone was like "holy shit check out this redditor's really cool deviant art, I love it!" and even then, it's polite to ask permission first.
If there is a troll problem, tell admins about it. Trying to whip up a vigilante mob by trying to "expose" what they do outside of reddit is absolutely not acceptable. And I hate to say this, but /r/conspiracy tends to be filled with people that...well, see conspiracy in everything. People tend to make a bigger deal out of nothing.
And the other thing is there's a difference between being a disagreeable jerk and harassing other users. If I go into every Israel/Palestine thread and ardently argue for one side for whatever reason, I am not of the opinion that we should be banning users for that. If people start harassing users while doing so, then we have a problem.
You can see how this very thread was pretty clearly harassment of another user. Doesn't matter what the justification is.
Yes, radioactivemilk was given a kind of warning: the rules of reddit are made explicit in the links at the bottom and the admins have made this policy clear several times over in various blog posts. Check it out, yo.
Furthermore, this is not something I did. Only admins can do this kind of thing, and they kind of run the site. So it's the people that run reddit who are doing this, not some regular old mod user.
2 Mumberthrax 2011-07-10
Did you get the feeling that radioactivemilk was trying to invite people to harass NotCOINTELPROAgent by posting his almost identical digg username+link? Or by posting the link to the youtube page for hortnon who is a member of their troll club? Because I didn't, but I could be looking at it from too narrow of a perspective. I inferred that he was trying to show that they have an extensive history of trolling and spreading propaganda, and are infamous on other sites on the internet, as sort of mini-celebrities.
"If"? ...Okay. So what do I do when they don't respond?
Education and exposition is not calling for vigilantism. It's disingenuous to imply that it is. Would you argue that the post which is on the front page at this very moment which lists ostensible spammers' usernames is an attempt to whip up vigilantism? The admins surely have seen it, and have not removed it. I would say that this is a double standard. http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/imeug/large_multinational_indian_based_it_support/
The intent is not to whip up vigilantism. The intent is to educate.
Yes of course a good portion of the people who regular r/conspiracy are going to be more prone to paranoia and sensationalism. Are we going to be nannies to them? Keep them from seeing things which don't necessarily break the rules but which they might react irrationally toward?
Anyway, like I said, i didn't infer a call to vigilantism. If you could point out the section of radioactivemilk's comments which did, then I would appreciate it. This is how I learn.
I'm not sure about this. What differentiates it from a thread about a dislikable public figure on another website, or a major troll like on r/worstof or r/reportthetrolls? Is it only different or special because the person himself arrived and left comments about the facebook page (which I agree WAS inappropriate - but that was nononoluciferians, not radioactivemilk's doing)
I took a look at the link you posted about personal information. Here is the text:
Radioactivemilk did not post a link to anybody's facebook page. He posted:
publicly visible comments on reddit from jcm267
link to a digg page with an almost identical username as NotCOINTELPROAgent
a link to a youtube page with an almost identical username as NotCOINTELPROAgent
a link to a youtube page which uses the exact same name as jcm267 uses on reddit
a link to their troll reddit where they upvote each other to counter the downvotes their trolling other reddits gets them
a link to another youtube page listed as jcm267's friend on youtube (who shares the same name as a regular user of their troll subreddit)
a link to a google search for the three names which showed clearly their infamous status as internet trolls and propagandist mini-celebrities.
a link to pipl.com when asked how the facebook identity was verified.
So, which of these is personal information? None of them are facebook. None of them are mailing addresses, phone numbers, email, or anything that does not share publicly available usernames (or very slight variants) that they regularly use on reddit.
So if these are personal information, then I hope that radioactivemilk was given a more explicit warning than the link you provided me which I quoted.
Did you remove his posts, or did the admins? I know you could not have shadowbanned him or edited his post. But you could have removed his comments. I'm not holding you accountable for admin actions, but I do want to know the extent of your involvement.
edit: oh haha, I'm silly. He posted a real name. Alright, I can see that. But why remove his comments?
3 illuminatedwax 2011-07-10
He is accusing him of being part of a conspiracy and then linking people to his personal stuff. Of course he is. Even if that isn't his intention, it is the ultimate effect -- you can't just post personal stuff, accuse people of something bad, and then say "well I didn't MEAN for people to bug him!" That's irresponsible.
Quit reddit. They run the site, man, if you have a problem and they don't respond to you, it's not up to you to call in vigilante action.
Those are reports of someone's comments on reddit. If someone is harassing you on reddit, you are free to do the same kind of thing to get them to stop doing so. This goes outside of reddit. "Outside" being the key distinction.
Educate for the purpose of vigilantism. What is then done with this new knowledge? Of course the idea is to then downvote the target en masse, or possibly harass them, on reddit or off, whether they are actually guilty or not. That's a vigilante.
Are you fucking blind?
radioactivemilk wrote:
Yeah, I think "death to the 9/11 traitors" counts as harassment.
Read the rule again:
Facebook pages were an example. That is not an exhaustive list of things you cannot post. That was a shit load of personal pages you posted, and I think you should look at that list again and realize that list is an incrimination, not a defense. Guess what? Facebook pages are often publicly available when people use their reddit username as their Facebook URL. Just because you can guess someone's account name on another side doesn't mean it's not personal information. If my username was my full name, you're not allowed to post my phone number and claim "IT WAS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE."
It all comes down to this:
Those links were obviously intended to invite harassment.
Oh and did you miss the part where radioactivemilk thanked someone for posting his Facebook? His intention was clearly to post as much information as he could about this person.
I removed his comments because that is my job. I alerted the admins as to the situation, and judging by their action, I am confident I made the correct decision.
1 Mumberthrax 2011-07-10
That was not the intent I inferred at all. It seems like you are assuming a bit much. Why would calling attention to trolls or propagandists be only for downvote brigades? Do you not value education so that people can learn what a troll or propagandist does so their actions can be countered in an intelligent and polite manner?
I don't know. I can understand where you are coming from. I wish that you weren't such a dick about trying to express it. I just think that you're ignoring the problem by focusing on a technicality. It's apparent to me that these guys are a problem. I wish that you would do something to help us to sort it out in a constructive manner and not just censor and ridicule the people who subscribe to r/conspiracy. It's a little disheartening. I can understand though if you moderate a lot of reddits and don't have time to invest in helping us figure out what to do about them and these call-out submissions that pop up.
I don't think your name-phone#/username-facebook analogy is quite applicable here. Digg and youtube are not facebook. I understood that facebook was just one example. Digg and youtube are different kind of websites, similar to reddit. I guess it's clear now that removing those links were your actions, not the admins. That's comforting to a certain extent.
It may be obvious to you, it just doesn't follow for me. I could see if he said "go downvote these guys because they don't deserve to be blah blah blah". and the bit about the traitors being killed was kind of extreme. I'm kind of glad that part was removed. I just don't get how the other comments were bad. Anyway, sorry for being so dense and bothering you. Thanks for sharing what you did.
1 illuminatedwax 2011-07-10
This is all I need to post, honestly.
Listen, I've been at the heart of a million stupid /r/conspiracy and /r/worldnews shit fights. It's all the same, it's never just about being harassed, it's about proving someone is something outside of reddit, and not only that, but from some kind of group that needs to be stopped somehow. It's a witch hunt, pure and simple.
What was radioactivemilk's ultimate goal? If it was to get him kicked off for being a "troll", there's no point: we aren't going to do anything unless there is harassment, and in that case, a link to the reddit posts is all you need to post.
1 [deleted] 2011-07-10
[deleted]
2 Mumberthrax 2011-07-10
Even though he does bad things, I don't know if posting his facebook is a good idea. Are you certain that's his?
3 radioactivemilk 2011-07-10
It connects with the other research. The picture also fits the relationships he talks about online, and his vacation spot.
Thanks for the tip, noluciferians.
-3 jcm267 2011-07-10
Will you lunatics stop linking to that guy's personal stuff, please? I'm not this Josh guy.
1 Nolubrication 2011-07-10
Yeah, seriously. JCM267's real name is Sean Paul Lockhart, but he is better known as Brent Corrigan, winner of back-to-back GayVN "Best Bottom" awards. Show some respect, people.
-3 jcm267 2011-07-10
No, son, I'm Rothschild and I like to sit in on Congressional hearings with a smug look on my face.
1 Nolubrication 2011-07-10
When did you relaunch your career as "Rothschild", Brent?
0 jcm267 2011-07-10
I was exposed. It's all covered here. BTW you've been exposed too, buster.
0 tzvika613 2011-07-10
Thanks for calling my attention to that, son. I didn't know that Nolubrication was part of the operation. Man, this compartmentalization thing is really effective. I wonder how fuckingkillme11441 (aka ghibmmm) ever managed to figure this out.
1 Nolubrication 2011-07-10
I, as a full fledged member of your cult, demand that I be reinstated with full posting and commenting privileges at ALL of your
herp derp factoriessubreddits. Furthermore, having been recognized by reddit for my contribution, I feel that a moderator role would be appropriate.If an illiterate simpleton like NoNoLibertarians, or a raging fuck-stick like JCM267 can moderate a
vortex of assholedomprestigious subreddit such as r/conspiratard, certainly I should be afforded the same honor.1 jcm267 2011-07-10
I tell you what I'll create a
playpensubreddit for you to moderate.0 Nolubrication 2011-07-10
Oh, that's too funny. Now that I've been bonafide, are you going to un-ban me from r/conspiratard? I'm one of the "good guys" now, right? Won't you let me join in your mental masturbation, reindeer games?
0 backpackwayne 2011-07-10
Report this to the moderators and administrators. This is not tolerated in any way on reddit.
5 Mumberthrax 2011-07-10
I tend to agree with you in this situation. I find it really funny though that you so valiantly support the rules when it comes to something that could potentially harm your downvote brigade buddy, and yet the rest of you freely violate the no personal attacks and no abusive behavior rules all the time.
0 backpackwayne 2011-07-10
No..., it's the posting of personal information that I am pointing out here. That is not allowed in any way or form. I love a good fight and you are welcome to call me any name in the book. But after the conversation is over you need to let it go. Not go out and make more posts to declare what an asshole this person is. I have never done that and I never will. That's just childish. And posting personal information is being vindictive and is one of the prime directive no-nos on this site. I have never done that to anyone.
3 [deleted] 2011-07-10
Jcm267 has posted personal information previously, so he doesn't have room to complain, and neither do his buddies.
1 backpackwayne 2011-07-10
If so that should be removed too. One does not excuse the other. Stop being such dicks and knock this shit off. You can argue your points with out such being vindictive fanatics.
3 [deleted] 2011-07-10
In one instance that I saw, it was reported and removed. Other instances have gone unaddressed. No one is making excuses, but if you have a problem with people getting their personal info posted because of petty online political bickering, then you have a problem with jcm267.
agreed 100%. Maybe you can convince jcm267 and his buddies of this point. If not, you need to take a closer look at who you are in bed with here, because they may not be playing by the same rules as you.
1 [deleted] 2011-07-10
[deleted]
-5 jcm267 2011-07-10
You know I bet you'd get along just well with the nutcases I have been dealing with over the past few days. You know according to one of the idiots you quoted I'm working for CENTCOM, according to the other idiot I'm a member of the Rothschild family. Now, radioactivemilk, according to you I'm some guy named Josh C Moskowitz and I deserve the death penalty for my crimes. The crimes you allege me to do are the same "crimes" that you are committing in the very post you are calling for me to be executed.
You're a paranoid jackass and a hypocrite, radioactivemilk! Go fuck yourself!
6 radioactivemilk 2011-07-10
Nice ad hom, asshole.
2 Mumberthrax 2011-07-10
Maybe this is answered elsewhere, but what constitutes personal information? If I post a link to a user profile on another website like digg, is that less personal than posting a link to a user profile on myspace or facebook? Or is it similarly disallowed?
What if instead of posting a link, I tell people to look up the person's username on digg or pipl? If I tell them that this user is a known troll or does bad things, and they can see the evidence on the digg site, etc.
At what point is information on the internet personal, and at what point is it public?
What if I send people links or quotes from previous conversations on reddit about a user? Is that personal information? If I post a collection of links to discussions about how user X is a troll or shill or astroturfer or whatever, all hosted on reddit where any user can view them, not published by me, is that posting personal information? Or if I submit a list of suspected sockpuppet accounts for a user?
Because you DO have a troll problem on here, and they make a huge fuss whenever someone tries to expose them or educate others about them. I just want to know the limits of what I can do to help educate people about them without getting myself banned. I know you've suggested posting in reportthespammers, but that isn't going to help the people who browse r/conspiracy if they never visit r/reportthespammers.
Lastly, I am curious about whether radioactivemilk was given a warning before he had his account removed. As you can see, I'm a little fuzzy on what constitutes a rule violation, so if I screw something up I don't want to be banned without the chance to remove my offending post or without knowing that my action was a rule violation. I know you didn't ban radioactivemilk from reddit, but somehow I doubt that the admins will listen to me if I try to talk to them. So anything you know about this stuff, I'd appreciate hearing it.